eWi~ J11leoiogy LOUIS JACOB;s

DARTON, LONGMAN 8c TODD LONDON First published in 1973 by Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd ss Gloucester Road, London SW7 sSU

ISBN o 232 SI224 8

© 1973 Louis Jacobs

~bJished in the United States by Behrman House, hlc:., 1261 Broadway, New York, New York 10001

Library of Congress Cataloging in PabUcadon Data

Jacobs, Louis. A Jewish theology.

I. Jewish theology. I. Title. BM6o1.}28 1973 296.j 73-17442 ISBN o-87441-248-x

Printed in Great Britain at The Pitman Press, Bath FOR SHULAMIT PREFACE

HIS book attempts a systematic presentation of the main T themes ofJewish theology. Kaufmann Kohler's pioneering work in the field Jewish Theology: Systematically and Histori­ cally Considered, was published in 1918 (re-published by Ktav in 1968) and is now out ofdate. Samuel S. Cohon's Jewish Theology, published posthumously from an incomplete manuscript, was evidently com­ piled in the main a long time ago and now has the same dated air as Kohler' s work. Many Jewish thinkers have written on theological topics since Kohler but there is a real lack of systematic treatment which this book seeks, however inadequately, to fill. The material presented here has not been published before except for some passages which have appeared in other books of mine (especially Principles of the Jewish Faith, which covers some of the same ground) and in the column I wrote regularly for the journal Judaism. The passages in smaller type in the body of the text contain more technical details and fuller bibliographical notes. If the reader wishes to.skip these he can do so without detriment to the argument. The first chapter ofthis book surveys the attitudes towards theology in the contemporary Jewish scene and argues for a more positive approach to this important branch ofJewish thought. That there are serious obstacles to the working out ofa viable Jewish theology is not to be denied but this should not prevent us from making the effort, always with the proviso that the results are put forward with no exaggerated claims as to their significance. The subjective element must frankly be recognised; the attempt being seen as a Jewish theology, a possible statement, acceptable to some minds, unaccept­ able to others. Tentativeness is a virtue in theological thinking and if speculation is the more suitable word so be it. The unity of God is the subject of the second chapter. Judaism dissociates itself entirely from all dualistic philosophies and from every compromise with pure monotheism. Implied in the doctrine of God's unity is that of His uniqueness. God is totally different from any ofHis creatures. But since the only language we have to speak of God is human language the problem ofwhat can legitimately be said viii PREFACE ofGod has always loomed large in any philosophical treatment ofthe Jewish faith. Chapter three considers this problem. The via negativa is accepted in essence but the idea of God as Person, i.e. as not less than a person, is defended against those thinkers who pronounce too readily the demise of the "supernatural". Traditional Theism, in w hi ch G o d IS. more t h an a vague "Force " or "Power " or "Process " in the universe, is still valid and is both more satisfying to the religious mind and has greater logical coherence than its naturalistic rivals. Chapters four to six continue with the theme ofreligious language and its meaning. What is it that Theists are trying to say when they affirm that God is both transcendent and immanent, that He is omnipotent and omniscient and that He is eternal? The Jewish faith is neither deistic nor pantheistic. Whether it is compatible with panentheism is considered and it is suggested that the difficulty is chiefly one of semantics. The semantic confusion in the mystical idea ofthe "eternal Now" is noted in the chapter on "Eternity" but, then, the whole question of God in His relationship to time and space is a mystery. Chapters seven to nine treat God as Creator and ofHis relationship to the world. The most acute problem here is the existence of evil, a problem which bears down with unparalleled intensity on contempor­ ary Jewry with the horrors of the holocaust fresh, in its memory to allow no rest. Since evil is real and God wholly good the theist has to grapple with the meaning ofomnipotence as applied to God but when all that can be said has been, the theist can only walk through the darkness by his faith. It is hard to believe in God but even harder not to believe in Him. Chapter ten is an excursus on the names of God, inserted here because the names given to God at various stages in the history of Judaism demonstrate how men thought of God in his relationship to them and in theirs to Him. This latter is discussed in chapters eleven to thirteen in its general aspects of love, fear and worship. There are various levels at which each of these operates from that unreflective type ofobservance without inwardness which borders on behaviour­ ism to the mystic's intense longing. The Hasidic advice for each man to discern the "root ofhis soul" and follow the path to which he fmds himself drawn is wise. The great temptation is self-delusion. The detailed obligations which Judaism imposes on its adherents and their source in relevation is the theme of chapters fourteen to PREFACE ix sixteen. The acknowledgement that Judaism is a devdoping faith and that a fundamentalist understanding ofrevdation is no longer tenable demands a new approach to the philosophy ofthe Halakhah. But the mitzvotstill provide theJew with his vocabulary ofworship and should consequendy be seen, even in the new scheme, as divine commands. The human situation is such that man is ever confronted with the challenge of the ought to be to the what is. He is acutdy aware of his failings and needs to find atonement. Chapters seventeen to nineteen study the perennial themes of sin and repentance. These, and even those ofreward and punishment (provided that they are not construed s0 as to suggest despotism in the Deity), are as relevant to the modern Jew as they were to his ancestors. The special role of the Jewish people and the new challenge to Jewish thinking on the question posed by the establishment of the State oflsrad, as well as the attitude ofJudaism to other rdigions, are examined in chapter nineteen through to chapter twenty one. The doctrine of chosenness is defended but not in its qualitative interpre­ tation in which the Jewish soul is seen as inherendy superior. Eschatology has its place in any p~;esentation ofJewish theology. Chapter twenty-two considers the doctrine of the Messiah as the culmination of human history here on earth, while chapter twenty three urges the acceptance ofthe traditional view that this life is not all and that there is an Hereafter, though in this area especially crudity of concept is to be avoided. Some readers will no doubt be critical that a number oftopics have been treated less than fully. I am particularly conscious that the critique··can be levelled against the chapter on ethics and on the role of Jewish peoplehood with reference to the State oflsrad. My excuse is that these topics, of the utmost importance to Jewish life, do not fall direcdy under the scope ofJewish theology. A cursory treatment of these great themes would be inexcusable in a work on Judaism as a whole. It is more intelligible in a work limited in scope to theology. The details ofhow aJew should conduct himsdfand his attitude to the State oflsrael are in all probability the most important a Jew today has to consider. But both these themes demand separate works to be treated comprehensivdy. Here only those aspects of them which touch direcdy on theology are examined. A feature of the book to which I should like to call attention is the prominence given to the Kabbalah. This is not because I bdieve that X PREFACE the Kabbalah can be swallowed whole. The modern Jew who finds inadequate many of the mediaeval formulations of faith is likely to find specially acute problems when reading the works of the Kabba­ lists. For all that the daring speculations ofthe Kabbalists deserve to be recorded in a work on Jewish theology. God is at the centre of their thought. Mysticism has righdy been described as religion in the most intense form and there is an awakened interest in Jewish mysticism in our day. Dean Inge's remark that personal religious experience is bound to be attractive in an age which has seen the breakdown of authoritarianism in religion commends itself to many thoughtful people. That more attention has not been paid to the moderns-Hermann Cohen, Baeck, Buber, Rosenzweig, Kaplan and Heschel-in com­ parison with the amount of space given to the views of the pre­ moderns is not because I imagine that Jewish religious thought came to an end at the close ofthe 18th century. It is rather that the chief aim of this book is to describe the tradition and to note the reservations regarding this tradition of one Jew among the many who have grappled with this theme. Where the views of the modems are ger­ mane to the argument they have been invoked and at times criticised. For a closer examination ofmodem Jewish theological thought a very different book would have to be written. Nevertheless, I am aware that I may be faulted for neglecting some of the more significant insights provided by more recent writers. I can only plead that my anthology of the modems, entided: Jewish Thought Today published by Behrman House be considered as. a complementary volume to this one. An author ought not to be gWlty of writing the same book twice. The book refers frequendy to the "modem Jew". That there is such a creature is a fact of daily experience. We are different from our forebears. Even the Jew who is finding_his way back to tradition is, in the vivid simile ofFranz Rosenzweig, at the periphery ofthe circle bent on approaching its centre. That many modern Jews are bothered by the conflict between certain traditional formulations and the new knowledge and insights is equally well-established. No apology is needed, then, for trying to spell out the details ofthe conflict and how it might be resolved in a synthesis of the old with the new. This task has been undertaken with varying degrees of success by thinking Jews·belonging to different schools over ·the past hundred and fifty PREFACE X1 years and more. The particular synthesis advocated in this book places greater reliance on tradition than some would be prepared to accept. The book might even qualify as "Orthodox" were it not that the majority of Orthodox Jews today would repudiate its attitude towards revelation and the question of authority in Judaism. The idea of a quest for the Torah is basic to the book's approach. For all its conviction that theology is important and wedded though it is to the attempt-foolhardy some would say-at systematising Jewish beliefs, it acknowledges, as we all must, that theological problems, or, for that matter, any other problems of significance to the way men live, are not solved within the pages of the books. But there is a grand Jewish tradition of Midrash, the root of which word means, after all, "to search". The search itself belongs to the life of religion as conceived by Judaism. In the old tale, when the dervish repeatedly entreats Allah to say: "Here am !".Allah eventually replies that He had already done so in the dervish's very quest. It is a pleasure to record my thanks to the members ofthe discussion group of the New London Synagogue for much stimulating dis­ cussion ofthe topics considered here. Professor Eugene Borowitz was kind enough to read through the whole manuscript and offer a detailed critique. Many of his suggestions for the improvement of the work have been acted upon. While I am deeply indebted to him the views presented in the book are my responsibility alone. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page PREFACE Vll

I. WHAT IS JEWISH THEOLOGY? I 2. THE UNITY oF GoD 2I 3. THE Via Negativa AND GoD AS Person 38 4· TRANSCENDENCE AND IMMANENcE 56 5· OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE 72 6. ETERNITY 81 7· CREATION 93 8. PROVIDENCE II4 9· THE GooDNEss oF GoD 125 Io. ExcURsus: THE NAMEs OF GoD 136 11. THE LoVE oF GoD 152 I2. THE FEAR oF GoD 174 I3. WoRSHIP AND PRAYER 183 I4. REVELATION 199 I5. ToRAH AND MrrzvAH 211 I6. JEWISH ETHICS 231 I7. SIN AND REPENTANCE 243 I8. REWARD AND PUNISHMENT 260 I9. THE CHOSEN PEOPLE 269 20. PEOPLEHOOD AND STATEHOOD 276 2I. JUDAISM AND OTHER RELIGIONS 284 22. THE .MESSIANIC HOPE 292 23. THE l!EREAFTBR 301

BmuoGRAPHY 323 INDEX 333 CHAPTER ONB

WHAT IS JEWISH THEOLOGY?

EWISH theology is an attempt to think through consistently the implications of the Jewish religion. In its contemporary Jversion such thinking through is to be done in accordance with the state of knowledge and information available at the present epoch in human history. Jewish theology differs from other branches of Jewish learning in that its practitioners are personally committed to the truth they are seeking to explore. It is possible, for instance, to study Jewish history in a completely detached frame of mind. The historian ofJewish ideas or the Jewish people or Jewish institutions need have no wish to express Jewish values in his own life. He need not be a Jew at all. Some of the best work in the discovery of what the Jewish past was really like has been done by non-Jews. Involvement (apart from the necessary degree of interest in the sub­ ject)isnotessentialforcompetenceinhistorical study. It can be argued that too much personal concern for the subject is detrimental to such studies in that the danger of a surrender to bias will always be present. It is otherwise with theology. The theologian must avail himself ofthe accurate findings of the historians, otherwise his speculations will belong to fantasy. But while the historian asks what has happened in the Jewish past, the theologian asks the more personal question, what in traditional Jewish religion continues to shape my life as a Jew in the here and now? The historian uses his skills to demons~ate what Jews have believed. The theologian is embarked on the more difficult, but, ifrealised, more relevant, task of discovering what it is that a Jew can believe in the present. The kind of questions the theologian asks and seeks to answer are chiefly concerned with God. Theology is the science of God. The Jewish theologian deals with questions such as: What is the Jewish concept of God? Is there a Jewish concept of God? What does Judaism teach about God's nature? Does God reveal Himself to 2 A JEWISH THEOLOGY mankind and ifso how? How is God to be worshipped? But as soon as questions of this nature are raised the element of absurdity in the whole theological enterprise becomes overwhelming. The best religious thinkers have been unanimous in declaring that God is unknowable. "If I knew Him I would be Him" remarked the sage quoted by the 15th century Jewish theologianJoseph Albo.1 Judging by the experience of the most subtle of religious thinkers, the more one reflects on the tremendous theme the more one is inclined to reject all faltering human attempts to grasp the divine. Does this not mean that the whole exercise is futile, that theology is doomed to commit suicide by its very suecess? "For man may not see Me and live" (Ex. 33: 20). There is much point to the objection and the theologian who abandons his humility loses his vocation. Yet the theologian follows respectable antecedents when he replies that his concern is chiefly with God in manifestation, in His relationship with man, and this can be discussed unless the theistic faith itself is ruled out of court. If, for example, prayer is engaged in, it becomes quite legitimate to ask what it is we are doing when we pray and which kinds of prayer are valid, which invalid. Furthermore, the doctrine that God is unknowable is itself a matter of human knowledge, arrived at by those who hold it after rigorous and sustained thought, and therefore is itself a thesis embraced by the term theology. Maimonides' analysis2 is relevant. Maimonides is very thorough­ going in his determination to dissociate from God anything belonging to the human. Maimonides' theology is one ofnegation. One cannot

I. Sefer Ha-Ikkarim, IT, 30, ed. Husik. p. 206. Albo quotesJedaiah Bedersi: Behinat Olam, Chapter 24: "The sum total of what we know of Thee is that we do not know Thee". Husik, note I, points to a similar observation in Saadia: Beliefs and Opinions, I, 4, Rosenblatt, p. 84. Saadia remarks that only the Creator can com­ prehend what creatio ex nihilo means and that therefore a demand by a creature for a demonstration ofhow this is possible is a demand for the creature to be the Creator. Husik, note 2, refers to Maimonides, Guide I, 59, who writes: "All men, those of the past and those of the future, affirm clearly that God, may He be exalted, cannot be apprehended by the intellects, and that none but He Himself can apprehend what He is, and that apprehension of Him consists in the inability to attain the ultimate term in apprehending Him. Thus all the philosophers. say: We are dazzled by His beauty, and He is hidden from us because of the intensity with which He becomes manifest, just as the sun is hidden to eyes that are too weak to apprehend it". 2. Guide, I, 59. WHAT IS JEWISH THEOLOGY? 3 say what God is-since by using human language to do this the human associations are bound to obscure the truth-but only what God is not. Ifthat is the case, argues Maimonides, what difference is there between the complete ignoramous and the most refined religious thinker since both arrive at the conclusion that we cannot know God's essential nature? In terms of our discussion Maimonides is asking what is the purpose of theological study if it can never produce positive results. The objection is stated by Maimonides this way (in Pines's trans~ lation) : "Someone may ask and say: Ifthere is no device leading to the apprehension of the true reality of His essence and if demonstration proves that it can only be apprehended that He exists and that it is impossible, as has been demonstrated, to ascribe to Him affirmative attributes, in what respect can there be superiority or inferiority between those who apprehend Him?If,however, there is none, Moses our Master and Solomon did not apprehend anything different from what a single individual among the pupils apprehends, and there can be no increase in this knowledge". Basically Maimonides' reply amounts to this. To know more about what God is not, is itself a very significant increase in positive know­ ledge. The unsophisticated believer entertains crude beliefs about the nature of God, depicting Him as a. colossal human being and the like. The task of theological thinking is to refine the God concept so that more and more is understood ofhow God is wholly other. This is the position of one of the most uncompromising defenders of a negative theology in the history ofJewish thought. Other theologians may be prepared to say rather more than Maimonides and to defend the legitimacy of using even positive attributes when speaking of God. But, in any event, the very point at issue is a theological one and discussion of the topic need not be fruitless. So much for theology in general. Jewish theology embarks on the task of understanding more fully the significance of the Jewish religion. It draws on the particular insights of the Jewish teachers of the past.

A Jewish theology to be relevant must grapple with the problems raised by modem thought but it cannot ignore the systematic presentations of the mediaeval giants. (Before the mediaeval period there was much theological discussion but not systematic treatment ofJewish theology.) The most impor­ tant of these are the following. (The initials E.T. after a title denote that an 4 A JEWISH THEOLOGY English translation is available, the details of which are given in the Bibliography.) The first great systematic Jewish theologian is Saadia Gaon. His workEmunot Ve-Deot [BeliefS and Opinions] (E.T.) was written in Arabic in 933 and has been translated into Hebrew. Bahya IbnJoseph Ibn Pakudah (probably first half of the nth century) wrote his Hovot Ha-Levavot (E.T.) [Duties of the Heart] in Arabic but the work was translated into Hebrew. It is largely an ethico-religious treatise but deals with theology especially in the first of its ten Gates: Shaar Ha-Yihud [Gate of Unification]. Judah Ha-Levi (d. after II40) wrote his Kuzari (E.T.) as a defense of Judaism and this work, too, was written in Arabic and translated into Hebrew. Similarly, the Jewish Aristotelean thinker Abraham Ibn David (c. n1o-c. n8o) wrote hisEmunah Ramah [Sublime Faith] in Arabic and it was translated into Hebrew. Practically all ofMaimonides' (1135-1204) works have theological import. The most important are his Commentary to the Mishnah, his Moreh Nevukhim (E.T.) [Guide for the Perplexed] both written in Arabic and translated into Hebrew, and his great .Code written in Hebrew Yad Ha-Hazakah [The Strong Hand] of which the first Book especially considers theological topics. The boldest of the mediaeval thinkers Levi b. Gershon, Gersonides (1288-1344) wrote his Milhamot Adonai [Wars of the Lord] in Hebrew. The great critic of Aristotle, Hasdai Crescas (134o-1416) wrote his Or Adonai [L{ght of the Lord] in Hebrew. His pupilJoseph Albo (c. 138o-1435) wrote his Sefer Ha-Ikkarim (E.T.) [Book of the Principles] in Hebrew.

If we delineate as one of the main tasks ofJewish theology the thinking through of the Jewish religion so that its teachings cohere with our present state of knowledge, this does not mean that we set up the nebulous thing called modem thought as rival to Judaism, or as a judge ofit. Since the object ofall theological investigation is God, the Author ofall that there is, it means quite simply that it will not do to construct a theology based solely on the traditional sources. We must also take into account the new knowledge which has accumu­ lated under God's guidance, especially where this runs counter to statements in the traditional sources. Maimonides, for instance, can hardly be ignored in any Jewish theological presentation but it would be folly to attempt to swallow Maimonides whole including his mediaevalism, his Aristotelian notions of science, for instance. The contemporary Jewish theologian must endeavour, however, inadequately, to do for our age what the great mediaeval theologians sought to do for theirs. He must try to present a coherent picture of what Jews can believe without subterfuge and with intellectual honesty. WHAT IS JEWISH THEOLOGY? S

In addition to having contemporaneity, theology must be con­ sistent. Whatever is said in one area must not contradict what is said in another. This is notoriously difficult in theology in general. It is especially difficult with regard to Jewish theology. A rich variety of views has come down to us from the past and many diverse views have been advocated by Jewish thinkers. It is, therefore, extremdy tempting to quote from the Jewish sources without taking the neces­ sary steps to determine whether the different views adopted are compatible. In all probability a degree of eclecticism cannot be avoided but the most strenuous efforts must be made in order to avoid a hopdess muddle. The maxim quoted by Solomon Schechter3 that the best theology is that which is not consistent has some force. It serves as a warning against facile solutions, to profound problems and· as a reminder that we cannot fit God into any of our tidy schemes. If it is taken as justifying loose and woolly thinking in the area ofrdigion it can easily lead to a glorification ofthe absurd and to a tacit admission that religion has nothing to do with truth. Holy nonsense is still nonsense. Even if the rdigious believer is ready to admit-as he must-that there are limits to human reasoning about the divine he must be capable ofdefending his position as a reasonable one and he must try to sketch the boundaries of his reasoning ifbe is to remain intdligible. A theology of silence is also a theology. The pitfalls surrounding any attempt to construct aJewish theology are numerous. No single person today can hope, for example, to acquire expertise in all the branches ofJewish thought ancient and modern. The linguistic equipment for this is alone daunting. Hebrew, Aramaic and the other ancient Semitic tongues are required for the understanding ofthe Bible and Rabbinic literature; Greek for Philo; Arabic for the mediaeval thinkers; German for much of the best that has been produced by modern Westernised thinkers; the languages of Asia for a correct assessment of the Far Eastern religions for com­ parative purposes; and one would have to add Latin for Aquinas and the other famous Christian theologians. Even if one relies on good translations the sobering fact remains that there is hardly any corner

3. Studies in]udaism, Vol. I. p. 231. Schechter's illustration is from Rabbinic views on retribution for sin. Retribution is taught so as to make man feel the responsi­ bility ofhis actions but the principle is never carried so far as to deny the sufferer our sympathy. It ca.ti be dOubted whether, in faCt:, this is evidence ofinconsistency. 6 A JEWISH THEOLOGY of these .vast areas of human thought that has not been critically examined by diligent scholars ready to pounce, and with justification, on fatuous errors due to unfamiliarity with the material. If the theologian wishes his work to be contemporary he must, at the very least, also know something ofwhat is being done today in astronomy, psychology, biophysics, para-psychology and many other subjects which impinge on his chosen subject. He must have an appreciation ofscientific method and its aims; ofthe history ofthe modern world; of linguistic philosophy and its discussion of religious language. With regard to method the prospect is even more alarming. How does the theologian learn to tread the tightrope between smooth self­ assurance and the timidity which refuses to express any but the most conventional views, between dogmatism and scepticism, between attraction for the novel and the startling and abject servility to the past, between hyper-criticism and blind loyalty? In the Jewish tradition even a Moses is compelled to bow to the wisdom of "For the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone" (Ex. 18: 18). What, then, can be more presumptuous than .to attempt to write a Jewish theology today? What then is to be done? Can Judaism afford to encourage religious behaviourism by implying that it is right to practise Judaism but not to consider the beliefs which endow the observances with their s,ignificance? One of the most revealing features ofJewish life today is the keen interest in theological questions by many sensitive Jews who wish to know not alone what Judaism would have them do but what Judaism would have them believe. The inescapable conclusion appears to be that work on theology by Jews should be encouraged but that those foolhardy enough to undertake it should declare their incompetence, not out of false modesty but because the subject demands nothing less. They should present their views as an invitation to others to consider, to criticise, to improve on, to challenge. At present the important thing is to get theology on the move once again in Jewish circles. Perhaps the name "theologian" is too grandiose for one who undertakes haltingly the re-examination of Jewish beliefs in the light of experience. Every writer on the subject can only repeat what the Jewish preachers of old were fond of saying when they faced squarely the question: Who am I to preach to others? They protested: I am speaking to mysel£ If others wish to overhear what I say I cannot object. WHAT IS JEWISH THEOLOGY? 7 Ifthere is a need for a Jewish theology in this century it is one that has hardly been satisfied. There are, of course, many works on theological ideas and on problems ofJewish faith in the modem world. One might mention in particular: the writings of Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, Mordecai Kaplan, Ignaz Maybaum and A. J. Heschel; Milton Steinberg's Anatomy cif Faith; Ever Since Sinai by Jacob J. Petuschoswski and the other writings of this thinker; Foundations ofFaith by Simon Greenberg; Arthur A. Cohen: The Natural and the Supernatural Jew; Emil L. Fackenheim: Quest for Past and Future; Leon Roth:Judaism; Will Herperg:Judaism and Modern Man; Samuel Belkin: Essays in Traditional Jewish Thought and In His Image;]. B. Agus: Guideposts to ModernJudaism; Robert Gordis: Judaismfor the Modern Age; Samuel S. Cohon: Theology Lectures; Richard L. Rubenstein: After Auschwitz and The Religious Imagination. Special reference should be made to the following symposia on Jewish belief: A Treasury cif Tradition ed. Lamm and Wurzburger; RediscoveringJudaism; Reflections on a New Jewish Theology ed. Arnold J. Wolf; Varieties ofJewish Belief ed. Ira Eisenstein; The Condition cifJewish Belief, a symposium compiled by the editors of Commentary magazine. The Commentary symposium consists of the replies by Rabbis and theologians of the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform groups in the United States to a list of questions which in es~ence are as follows: (1) In what sense do you believe the Torah to be divine revelation? (2) In what sense do you believe that the Jews are the chosen people of God? (3) lsJudaism the one true religion? (4) Does Judaism as a religion entail any particular political view­ point? (5) Does the "God is dead" question have any relevance to Judaism? The quote on the jacket blurb of the Commentary symposium from Milton Himmelfarb's Introduction is highly significant: "Historically, some Jewries were more theological than others. The more advanced the culture they lived in and the more vigorous its philosophical life, the more they had to theologise. Mediaeval Spanish Judaism was more theological than Franco-GermanJudaism, Maimonides more than Rashi. In these terms, we live in Spanish and not Franco-German conditions, and we too need theology. How much? More, I would say, than we are getting" (italics mine). The works treating this scheme systematically and com­ prehensively can be counted on one hand. M. Friedlander's The Jewish Religion is elementary and not a little naive. Morris Joseph' sJudaism as Creed and Lift is more sophisticated and contains a good deal of material in a well-presented manner. Both these works are very "Victorian" in outlook and are now dated. LeoBaeck's The Essence cifJudaism is justly celebrated but ponderous and rather vague. Isidore Epstein' s The Faith of Judaism is attractively written. It surveys Jewish beliefs from the strictly Orthodox point of view but is inadequate in coping with the challenges presented, for example, by historical criticism. The standard work on the whole theme is Kaufmann Kohler'sJewish Theology. This and Samuel S. Cohon'sJewish Theology are the only two works with this title. Kohler's book is a splendid pioneering effort and is indispensable for the study of the 8 A JEWISH THEOLOGY subject but is heavily coloured by Protestant thought in the period when the book was compiled. The same applies more or less to Cohon's book. More recently Eugene B. Borowitz has published his A New Jewish Theology in the Making but this, while very helpful as regards the problems of theological method, is not a systematic treatment ofJewish theology. While various topics in the field are treated in the companion volume, How Can A Jew Speak of Faith Today, these must be considered preliminary investigations rather than a coherent account ofJudaism. Solomon Schechter'sAspects of Rabbinic Theology is essential reading for the understanding of the thought of the Talmudic Rabbis on theological themes but it is almost entirely a purely historical study with hardly any emphasis on Jewish theology for the present. The same applies to the splendid, The Sages, Their Concepts and Beliefs (Heb.) by Ephraim E. Urbach. Montefiore and Loewe's A Rabbinic Anthology, on the other hand, does contain many notes on debates by the editors of contemporary theological significance. On the general theme the articles Theology by J. Z. Lauterbach(]ewishEncyclopedia, Vol. XII, pp. 128-13 7) and Samuel S. Cohon (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pp. 242-244) should be consulted.

The detailed topics with which a Jewish theology should be con­ cerned are: the Jewish approach to God and how this differs from the approaches of other religions; the relationship between God and man; the meaning and significance of worship; the doctrine of reward and punishment; the doctrines of the Messiah and the Here­ after; the idea of the Chosen People and the theological implications of the State of Israel; the problem of evil; the question of divine providence and miracles; in short all those topics which have to do with Jewish belief in contradistinction to Jewish practice. A work on Jewish theology will consequently be more limited than a work on Judaism as a whole. Its concern will be with Judaism as a religion. Naturally, however, other aspects of Judaism will find their place in such a work insofar as they are relevant to the central theme. The question of dogma in Judaism about which so much has been written can be evaded by Jewish theology only by being untrue to its aim. The author of a Jewish theology ought to describe which Jewish beliefs, as he sees it, are both Jewish and true. The difficult question· of what the Jewish dogmas are has been studied historically in the remarkable essay by Solmon Schechter entitled: The Dogmas of]udaism. 4 Schechter is surely right when he observes: "Political 4· Studies in]udaism, Vol. I, pp. 147-181. Schechter's note should be consulted for a full bibliography on the subject. WHAT IS JEWISH THEOLOGY? 9 economy, hygiene, statistics, are very fme things. But no s~e man would make for them those sacrifices whichJudaism requires from us. It is only for God's sake, to fulfi.l His commands and to accomplish His purpose, that religion becomes worth living and dying for. And this can only be possible with a religion which possesses dogmas". True, yet it is a pity that Schechter did not feel it to be within his terms ofreference to consider what these dogmas are for the modem Jew. It is essential to take up the matter from ~here Schechter left off and it is here that a modem Jewish theology can come into its own. The topic will be treated directly as we proceed.

The following are the principles of the Jewish faith as drawn up by different thinkers. Maimonides in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanh. IO: I has 13 principles (these became the foremost of the Jewish creeds): (r) Beliefin the existence of God; (2) God's unity, (3) His incorporeality, (4) His eternity, (s) God alone is to be worshipped, (6) Prophecy; (7) Moses is the greatest of the prophets, (8) The Torah was given by God to Moses, (9) The Torah is immutable, (ro) God knows the thoughts and deeds of men, (II) Reward and Punishment, (I2) The Messiah, (r3) The Resurrection. Simon b. Zemah Duran(I36I-r444): MagenAvot end oflntroduction p. zb: (r) The Existence of God, (2) The Torah is divine, (3) Reward and Punishment. Abba Mari b. Moses ofLunel (d.c. 1250) in his Minhat Kenaot, Chapters 4f. pp. 7f: (1) Belief in God, (z) Creation of the world by God, (3) Providence. Joseph Albo: Ikkarim(the book as a whole): (1) The existence of God, (2) The Torah is divine, (3) Reward and Punishment. Isaac Arama (c. I42o-1494) inAkedat Yitzhak, Gate ss: (r) Creatio ex nihilo, (2) Revelation, (3) The World to Come. The Spanish Theologian, hostile to philosophy,JosephJabez · (rsth-16th century) in his Maamar Ha-Ahdut states that there are 3 principles: (1} The Unity of God, (2) Providence, (3) That in the future all men will acknowledge His unity. (Schechter op. cit. p. 173, gives them incorrectly as: Creatio ex nihilo, Individual Providence and the Unity of God). Moses b. Joseph di Trani (called Mabit, 1505-!585) in his Bet Elohim, Shaar Ha-Yesodot, follows Maimonides that there are 13 principles but observes that these are all embraced by 3 main principles: (1) The existence of God, (2) The Torah is from Heaven, (3) Providence = Reward and Punishment. lsaac Abarbanel (1437-1508) in his Rosh Amanah, Chapter 23, argues that there are no special principles of the faith but that every part of the Torah is ofequal value. The same view is adopted by David b. Solomon Ibn Abi Zimra (1479-1573) in his Responsa, No. 344· Reference might here be made to the Samaritan Creed (see John Macdonald: The Theology of the. Samaritans, I, 6, pp. 49-55): (1) One God, (2) Moses, (3) The Law, (4) The Holy mount of Gerizim, (s) Judgement Day, e.g. in the Defter (The Samaritan Liturgy): "My Lord, we shall never worship any but Thee, nor have we any faith but in Thee and in Moses Thy prophet, and in Thy true Scriptures and in the place 10 A JEWISH THEOLOGY

of worshipping Thee, Mount Gerizim, Bethel, the mount of rest and of the divine presence, and in the Day of Vengeance and Recompense". It has been argued, however, that Judaism is opposed to theology on two grounds. The first of these is because Jewish thinking in its classical and formative periods-those of the Bible and the Rabbinic literature--was "organic" rather than systematic,5 a response to particular concrete situations rather than a comprehensive account of what religious belief entails. Secondly, the emphasis in Judaism is on action, on doing the will of God not on defining it. There is truth in both these contentions but it is far from the whole truth. A concern with systematic thinking about Judaism did not emerge until Greek modes had made their impact upon the Jewish teachers. Once this had happened sustained reflection on the nature of the Jewish faith was seen as an imperative, at least in those circles which experienced the full force of the collision. Unless Philo of Alexandria, Saadia, Bahya, Maimonides, Gersonides, Crescas and Albo among the ancient and mediaeval thinkers; Cordovero and Luria, R. Schneor Zalman ofLiady and R. Hayim ofVolozhyn among the Kabbalists; and, in modem times, Moses Mendelssohn, Schechter, Rabbi Kook, Kaufmann Kohler, Buber, Rosenzweig and Leo Baeck; are to be read out ofJudaism, theology is a legitimate pursuit for Jews. Indeed if the example of such outstanding Jewish thinkers is followed, the attempt to work out a theology for our age as they did for theirs is more than a reluctant dispensation. As they saw, and frequently maintained, a refined, intellectually respectable faith is the only one possible for men who have been trained to apply their reason in other areas of human life. 6 One can understand, though disagree with the secular Jewish nationalist when he pronounces on the un-Jewish nature oftheological thinking. His interest is in theJewish culture and ethics and he has no need for the God hypothesis. But it is curious what happens when Jewish religious teachers roundly make this declara­ tion. First they say that Judaism has no theology and many of them 5· The best statement ofRabbinicJudaism as "organic" is to be found in the words ot Max Kadushin, see especially his: The Rabbinic Mind. Kadushin adds further subdeties but these are not our concern. 6. Bahya Ibn Pakudah: Duties of the Heart, Shaar Ha-Yihud, Chapter 2, quotes with approval the saying of "a philosopher" that only the prophet, who knows God intuitively, and the philosopher, whose ideas about God have been refined in the crucible of his thought, worship God. All others worship something other than God. WHAT IS JEWISH THEOLOGY? I I proceed to state in detail what it is thatJud.aism would have us believe -generally, the acceptance as infallible truth of every traditional view. A good case can be made out for reliance on tradition or experience rather than reason on the basic issues ofbeliefin God but if such a position is argued for it is theology that is being done. If, however, all that is implied in the rejection ofJewish theology is that the mediaeval thinkers were too much influenced by Greek and Arabic thought, this might be conceded. Nonetheless, our age has both produced new insights and recaptured some old ones (such as the Biblical) and these must become part of an adequate Jewish theology for today. One of the quotes frequently heard nowadays in the accusation that theology is un-Jewish is from the Midrash: "God said: Would that they had forsaken Me and kept My Torah•' .7 Needless to say this is a misquotation. The Midrash clearly does not wish to imply that God wants us not to think about Him. The meaning is rather than God is prepared, as it were, to settle for uninformed, self-seeking observance· of the Torah because, such is the spiritual power of the Torah, even this will eventually lead Israel to Him. As the passage from this Midrash concludes: "The light she (the Torah) contains will restore them to the good... Nor is it true that theology is a harmless but irrelevant pastime, a luxury we can ill afford in our age when so many practical problems press in on us. Even on purely pragmatic grounds theology is impor­ tant, because how Jews lead their lives depends on how they conceive of the purpose of their existence. "Show me a man• s philosophy.,, said Chesterton, "and rn show you the man... Is it not correct, for instance, that all the divisions among religious Jews on the scope and obligation ofJewish observances depend ultimately on differing views regarding a basic theological question, the meaning of revelation? Rabbi Solomon Goldman, expressed many years ago, in a com­ mencement address to young Rabbis,8 a mistrust of theology that is typical ofmany ofits Jewish opponents. There are profoundly com­ mitted Jews whose concern it is to preserve the unity of the Jewish

7· Jer. Talmud, Hag. I: 7; Lam. R.Introduction 2. M. Friedlander: The Jewish Religion, p. 3, note I, quotes this and, with very dubious historical warrant, paraphrases it as: "theologians would do better if they were less eager to investi­ gate into the essence of God and His attributes and were more anxiotis to study and to do God's commandments". , 8. The Function of the RAbbi in Crisis and Decision, pp. 79-99. 12 A JEWISH THEOLOGY people and fear too much theology as a divisive force. Goldman writes :9 "We will, friends, be wholly within the spirit of Jewish tradition if we are more concerned with how men live than with what they believe. It is more important that you be concerned with details than with generalities, with Mizvot than with Ani Maamins". But of which Jewish tradition is Goldman speaking? Certainly not that of Bahya Ibn Palcudah, for instance, who deplored the very emphasis which Goldman advocates. Bahya's "D~ties of the Heart" (the tide ofhis famous book) cover all the inner life ofman and these are considered "in detail" and are upheld by Bahya as supreme Mitzvot. How can one b~ concerned only with the details ofJewish life unless one has a philosophy ofJudaism? Goldman himself seems to be aware of the problem when he admits :10 "I do not want to be misunderstood. Mine is not the temper to belittle the value of earnest speculative thought. I do not seek to eliminate metaphysics from our preoccupations. You do not belong to the society of men if you are not questing for certainty. You are what the cabbalists called pagum or defective ifyou do not ever so often ascend the philosopher's ivory tower to seek the lever that will balance the Cosmos. I speak only of the delusion and conceit which assume that what is spiritually satis­ fying and intellectually convincing to oneself must needs become the cornerstone for all". As a warning against over-confidence Goldman, and those who think like him, is worth listening to. In any event the theologian ought not be concerned to seek his lever in the philosopher's ivory tower but in Judaism as he seeks to co-ordinate its teachings and establish coherence between them and what he and others feel to be true. The dangers of pride and dogmatism should act as a check to theological smugness. They ought not to frustrate theology itsel£ So much for the objection that theology is un-:Jewish. It is impos­ sible, however, for a work on theology to proceed without recognising that theological thinking, together with metaphysics in general, has been subjected to a severe hammering in the second third of this century. This has come from linguistic analysis on the one harid and from existentialism on the other. Many linguistic philosophers, especially in Great Britain and the United States, have become extremely suspicious of theological formulations. Theological g. See supra p. 87-88. 10. Pp. .ss-86. WHAT IS JEWISH THEOLOGY? 13 language they declare to be frequently meaningless and its problems only pseudo-problems. The contemporary theologian, if he is wise, will heed their demand that he show how his statements are to be "cashed". The need for precision in language and the avoidance of obscurity are requisites for any theological presentation. The tendency of some continental theologians to reject clear, easily understood words in favour of a high-flown vocabulary which only darkens counsel is extremely unfortunate. The discussion ofprofound matters is hampered not assisted when carried out in a ponderous, elusive style. (On the Jewish theological scene, it is sad to record, Buber, Rosenzweig and Leo Baeck are especially guilty on this score.) As has been said in this connection, one does not have to be fat in order to drive fat oxen. . The existentialists, even (perhaps one should say especially) the religious existentialists, tend to scorn theology as so much "cosmic talk" with no relevance to the religious and spiritual predicament of the individual desperately searching for that which is true for him. Man needs God, it is claimed, as the living heart of his faith not talk about Him as a pleasant intellectual exercise. But the search for truth is also an important part ofa man's life and he can engage in this, too, with passion. Religious existentialists write books to put forward their point ofview; they defend their philosophy against attack, they argue for existentialism as a valid outlook; and, insofar as they do these things, they, too, are doing theology. To say, as some of them do, that it is pointless to consider ultimate reality apart from man's involvement in it is in itself to make a significant statement about ultimate reality. Every attempt at constructing a Jewish theology must face up to the problem of methodology. The materials for the construction are the teachings about God and His relationship to man contained in the Bible and extended, elaborated on and interpreted in the Rabbinic literature, in post-Talmudic thought down to the present day, and in the living experience of the Jewish people throughout the ages. The central methodological problem is that ofdiscrimination. Not every­ thing that has come down to us from the past is durable. For instance, Maimonides (a thinker who, as we have already emphasised, must on any showing have a voice in any Jewish theological scheme) solemnly rules11 that if Jewish authorities enjoy the power to do so various n. Yad, Avodah Zarah 10: I; Rotzeah 4: 10. 14 A JEWISH THEOLOGY types of Wlbelievers are to be deprived of their lives. The whole temper of our times based on som1der knowledge of the horrors to which religious intolerance can lead and a deeper respect for individual conscience is against Maimonides who was a child of his day in this and in other mediaeval attitudes he firmly adopted. Even the strictly Orthodox compilers of the latest Talmudic Encyclopedia (Encyclo­ pedia Talmudit] currently being published in Israel record the views of Orthodox Rabbis that these rules have had their day12 either because this is not the way to win souls nowadays or because the old type ofm1believer is no more. Historical investigations into the nature ofJudaism have revealed that it is a developing faith, influenced at every step in its growth by the ideas and cultural patterns ofthe various civilisations with which Jews came into contact. The result is that contradictions abom1d in the traditional sources, to the extent that matters some teachers consider to be essential to Judaism others consider inessential or even harmful. Saadia Gaon13 rejects the doc­ trine of the transmigration of souls while for the Kabbalists it is a basic Jewish doctrine.14 The criteria for determining which beliefs are to be embraced by a Jewish theology and which rejected can only be those of con­ sistency within the tradition and coherence with the rest of our knowledge. Where there are contradictions in the traditional sources the contemporary Jewish theologian must try to decide which of the views is closest to the spirit of the tradition as a whole, no easy task to be sure. Where there are contradictions between traditional formu­ lations and more receilt views he must try to decide which is closest to the truth, an even more difficult exercise. Obviously there will be a degree ofagnosticism in areas where a simple decision for or against is ruled out by the nature ofthe problem. Equally obvious will be the strong element of subjectivity in the presentation and at times of arbitrariness. Provided all this is frankly acknowledged-and the theologian is content to call his essay aJewish theology not the Jewish theology-no great harm is done. Speculation has its place. Theology can and should be a creative endeavour. The historian of the Jewish religion tells us what it is that Jews believed in former ages. The task

12. ArtieleApikoros, Vol. 2, p. 137 cf. Samuel Morell: The Halachic Status of the Non­ Halachic]ew in]udaism, Fall, 1969. 13. Beliefs and Opinions. VI, Chapter 8. 14. See Manasseh b. Israel: Nishmat Hayim, IV, Chapters 6-r6. WHAT IS JEWISH THEOLOGY? 15 of the theologian is to draw on the findings of the historian but to ask what it is thatJews can believe today. Since his material will be culled from Jewish sources the resulting edifice will succeed in providing a Jewish spiritual home for some. It will almost certainly fail to provide a home for those with different theological approaches and these will be called upon to construct a more suitable dwelling for themselves out of the same raw materials. At the centre of any Jewish theology is the doctrine of God. This traditional Jewish view is nowadays called theism. Whether, as Y. Kaufinann maintains15 the doctrine of the one God erupted spon­ taneously in ancient Israel or whether as a majority ofscholars hold,16 there can be detected in the Bible a gradual evolution from poly­ theism through henotheism to pure monotheism, is a matter for Biblical research to decide. The relevant factor for the Jewish theolo­ gian is that theistic beliefbecame the unqualified Jewish beliefheld by all believing Jews. Theism is the doctrine that God is both tratls­ cendent and immanent. He is in the universe and involved in all its processes but He is also beyond the universe. Ifthere were no universe there would still be God. But without God there could be no universe. Theism involves the rejection as untrue of: deism, the doctrine that God is only transcendent; pantheism, that God is wholly immanent; polytheism, that there are many gods; dualism, that there are two gods, one good the other evil; atheism, that there is no God; and agnosticism, that man by his nature cannot know whether or not there is a God. Traditional theism says of God that He exists, that He is one, that He is both transcendent and inlmanent, that He is omnipotent, that He is omniscient, that He is eternal, that He is the Creator of the universe, and that He is wholly good. All these ideas are either explicit in the picture regarding God which emerges eventually in classical Judaism or would seem to follow from reflection on the significance and nature of that picture. Each of them requires further study for its detailed meaning and for whether it can be qualified in some way, ifnecessary, and yet remain Jewish doctrine. A work on Jewish theology must address itself to these themes. The Jewish theologian accepts as the basis of all his work the belief that God exists. He must say something about how he has arrived at

15. The Religion of Israel. This point is the continuing theme of the whole work. 16. A comprehensive survey of the whole problem is H. H. Rowley's Moses and Monotheism in From Moses to Qumran, Chapter 2, pp. 35-63. 16 A JEWISH THEOLOGY his sense of conviction but qua theologian he is not called upon to engage in the different discipline known as the philosophy ofreligion. As a believer in God the theologian must try to convey what He understands to be the content of this belie£ In the remainder of this chapter, then, the question ofGod's existence will be discussed. But it must be repeated that the theologian has attained to a belief in God because this seems to him to be the most satisfactory philosophy of human existence in terms of whatever experience he has of life and truth. He begins his work with the traditional affirmation:17 "I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is the Author and Guide of everything that has been created, and that He alone has made, does make, and will make all things", though his own formulation of what is implied may differ in some respects from this particular one. This kind of avowal will no doubt disappoint some prospective readers who wish to turn to books of this nature for an undeniable demonstration that God exists. The theologian can only reply that his work is undertaken with a different aim in mind. It is not his purpose to convert the non-believer but to try to give to the believer an account of what it is that he believes. The hypothetical believer addressed includes, of course, the poor. theologian himsel£ Yet the non-believer may gain an idea of what belief properly involves. Often it turns out, his non-belief is shared by the believer for Judaism does not affirm much nonsense that people take it to. Hence it may turn out that though this book is not written to persuade, the supposed non-believer may be more within the circle of faith than he has thought. Some religious thinkers, both mediaeval and modern, have found the statement "God exists" to be offensive.18 To say that someone exists is to imply that he might not have existed. It is to treat him as one ofthe many beings in the universe whom it is possible to conceive of as not having existence. Thus, it is possible to think of the universe itself as not having come into existence. But God, in Tillich's phrase, is being-itself. It is impossible to imagine being-itself as not existing.

17. Singer's Prayer Book, p. 93· 18. See the discussion in Albo: Sefer Ha-Ikkarim, II, 30 and Paul Tillich's statement (Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p. 227): "God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists, is to deny hi m." WHAT IS JEWISH THEOLOGY? 17

For thinkers who argue in this way it is as absurd to say that God exists as to say that God has died or is blind. Whatever meaning we give to the word "God" it must by definition imply (or, at least, most people who use the word would hold it to imply) that He is the Being who cannot die. He is the one for whom terms with human associations like death and blindness are totally inapplicable. But all this to make rather heavy weather of what most people readily understand. Neither believers nor unbelievers generally take "God exists" to be a description of God's nature but an affirmation that the term "God" has a reference, that there really is a God, that He is not a figment of the imagination. In the history of theism there are four different ways to faith in God, ways be means of which men have attained to complete and utter conviction that God is.19 These are: (1) the way of reason, in which proofs are offered for God's existence; (2) the way of experi­ ence, the mystical approach, in which God is directly apprehended; (3) the existentialist "leap of faith", in which man opts for belief in God as a personal decision; (4) the way of tradition, in which a man follows the theistic beliefs ofpredecessors to whom, they claim, God revealed Himsel£ The attempt to prove God's existence by rational demonstration goes back to Plato20 (although his proofwas for deity, conceived ofin pluralistic terms, not for the God of traditional theism).21 This approach to faith was followed by Philo of Alexandria22 and was popular among the mediaeval thinkers, Christian, Islamic and Jewish. The three main"arguments" or "proofs" for the existence ofGod are: (1) The ontological, invented by St. Anselm of Canterbury, in which the very definition of God as the most perfect being embraces His existence, since an existing being is more perfect than a non-existing being. (2) The cosmological, in which God's existence is affirmed as the only explanation of why things are. God is the Cause of causes, the Prime Mover. (3) The teleological, or argument from (or "to") design, in which the order evident in the universe points to a Designing Mind. Two further arguments advanced in more recent times are: the moral argument, in which God is affirmed as the ground of the moral 19. These are considered in detail in my book Faith. 20. The Laws. Book X. 2 1. See Waiter Kaufmann: Critique of Religion and Philosophy, pp. 137-139. 22. LegumAllegoria, Ill, 32, pp. 367-369; De Fuga et Inventione, 2, p. 17; De Specialibus Legibus, I, 6, p. ug. · I 8 A JEWISH THEOLOGY life, as the only explanation of the idea of duty; and the argument from religious experience, in which God is affirmed as the only explanation ofthe widely attestated experiences ofthe mystics and other men who have had religious experiences in which they have claimed to have been in contact with a transcendental reality. 23 The mediaeval thinkers had no doubts regarding the capacity of the arguments to do what they set out to do, prove the existence of God. To be sure some mediaeval Jewish thinkers were suspicious of the attempt to arrive at God's existence by means of the unaided human reason when faith by tradition was available. The debate really centred on the question of which way-that of tradition or of reason-was the more secure. The traditionalists pointed to the notorious capacity of the human mind to fall into error. Once give reason its head, they argued, and men might mistakenly be led by it into doubt. The exponents of the way of reason countered that the opposite is true. The man who relies solely on tradition will always be haunted by the fear that the tradition might be wrong, whereas the way of reason was sure, convincing and free from all subsequent doubt. But both the traditionalists and reasoners were basically agreed that, leaving aside the question of failure to attain the truth, the way of reason, if properly followed, did lead to God. If only man used his reason correctly it could prove to him that God exists. To this day it seems to be the official view ofthe Roman Catholic Church that it is not only necessary for man to believe in God but necessary for him to believe that the existence of God is capable of rational demonstration. That this whole view has been severely challenged in modem times is due to the thinking ofthe philosophers Hume and Kant.24 Hume's critique of the cosmological argument is based on his empirical approach. He argues that we have no right to conclude from our observations of what we call cause and effect that ejfoct B 23. The literature on the proofs for God's existence is immense. A good selection from the thinkers for and against and a comprehensive bibliography is provided in The Existence of God edited by John Hick. 24. Hume's works on religion are: The Natural History of Religion; Dialogues Con­ cerning Natural Religion; An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Useful is Richard Wollheim's Hume on Religion. Kant's main works on religion are: Critique of Pure Reason; Critique of Practical Reason. The important sections of these are given in Caldecott and Mackintosh: Selections from the Literature of .Theism, pp. 179-255. A useful small book on the arguments ofHume, Kant and others is Ninian Smart's Philosophers and Religious Truth . . WHAT IS JEWISH THEOLOGY? 19 must follow on cause A, only that in all the cases investigated B does follow A. Consequently, all we can say about causes and their effects are in terms of our observations regarding the relationship between things in the universe. To speak ofa cause ofthe universe itself would mean that we have observed a number of universes to discover that effect B always follows on cause A, which is patently absurd. There­ fore, there is no meaning to the question: What is the cause of the universe? Hume's critique of the teleological argument is based on the evidence there is of lack of design we would expect if it had Supreme Mind as its Author. Kant' s critique is based on his theory of knowledge. On Kant' s view human reasoning is the tool we have for seeing the world in the relationship between its various parts. The human mind coordinates the impressions it receives through the senses and gives these form. We can never know the noumena-as things are in themselves, only the phenomena-the impressions we receive of them. Consequently, the human mind is not endowed with the capacity to discover by pure reason the truth about that which is beyond the universe, beyond the phenomena. It follows that the attempt to invoke God as the explanation of the universe is bound to fail. Kant does, however, believe that man's "practical reason" must convince him of God's existence since otherwise the sense of duty and obligation would have no ground. Kant therefore rejects the cosmo­ logical and teleological proofs (and also :finds the ontological proof unsatisfactory) but does accept a version of the moral argument. Even after Hume and Kant some thinkers down to the present day still treat the traditional arguments for the existence of God with respect and have tried to defend them against the critics. But for the majority of thinkers all confidence has departed that proofs can be found for the existence of God. Religious existentialists, from Kierkegaard onwards, far from being dismayed at the prospect, have rejoiced in it. In a famous saying of Kant, knowledge is denied in order to make room for faith. Kierkegaard considered it a gross impertinence to try to prove God's existence much as it would be if someone addressing a king on his throne stopped to prove that the king existed. 26 Recent works on the philosophy ofreligion generally

:as. Concluding Unscientific Postscript, p. 485. 20 A JEWISH THEOLOGY take great pains to examine all the arguments, including the exist­ entialist approach, with great subtlety. They· have added many criticisms and refinements. The result has been a strengthening faith for some minds. However, in general it must be said that there has been an abandonment of the mediaeval confidence that anyone who has the intellectual capacity and the mental stamina can demonstrate that God exists. The way of faith most typical ofJudaism is the way of tradition. TheJew is one who is either born into or adopts ofhis own free choice a community which has constantly made sense of its existence and survival in terms of a God-given guidance. Ultimately the Jewish believer opts for God in complete conviction that this belief makes sense of human life with all its difficulties in a way in which no other philosophy does. It was on the basis of this, for example, that Judah Ha-Levi begins his argument for faith. He does not argue for God as Creator of the world but as the Deliverer oflsrael from Egyptian bondage.26 Jewish theology, then, starts with an affirmation that God is. It proceeds to examine in detail what this entails in terms of human beliefs and demands on human life, seeking always to set forth the ideas of the great Jewish thinkers of the past but examining these critically as well as analytically so that they can provide an adequate philosophy ofJewish belief to be embraced by Jews today.

26. Kuzari, I, Io-13.